Congressman ends prayer with ‘amen and awoman,’ proving that political agendas trump reality (VIDEO)

/

 

Congress is moving to rename all executive agencies that include the word “department,” citing the consecutive letters m-e-n as too male-centric and oppressive towards women. Now we will have the State Departwoment, Defense Departwoment, etc. which makes the names equal for men and women since both genders will have representation in the title. One congressional staffer spoke on terms of anonymity saying that they heard “departwomenonbinaryt” is in the works, too.

 

Obviously, the above narration is not true. But on an equal plane of absurdity, the term “amen” has been ushered into the realm of misogyny.

 

On Sunday, January 3, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., delivered a prayer before the newly-sworn-in 117th Congress which he concluded with “amen and awoman.”

 

“Eternal God, we bow before your throne of grace as we leave behind the politically and socially clamorous year of 2020 … May we model community healing, control our tribal tendencies, and quicken our spirit … We ask it in the name of the monotheistic God, Brahma, and ‘god’ known by many names by many different faiths. Amen and awoman.”

 

 

It isn’t enough to merely correct Cleaver’s use of the word, since he knows exactly what amen means (more on that in a moment.) This was undoubtedly done as a means of advancing a poisonous agenda of modern feminism. Saying “amen” is apparently too male-oriented to be used in modern times, so we needed to include awoman as well.

 

On a side note, Cleaver identifies as a Christian, graduated from a Christian seminary, and has pastored Christian churches. Yet in his prayer, he invokes the name of Brahma (Hindu god) and other gods. It should be noted that the Christian faith fervently holds to a belief in, not just allegiance to, one God. That, paired with Cleaver’s support for abortion, certainly calls the authenticity of his faith into question.

 

This is much more than an isolated incident of low-hanging fruit to laugh at. This “awoman” nonsense is the manifestation of the false narratives of modern feminism so desperately clung to by progressives that they will utilize any means possible to advance it — even if it means misrepresenting the truth.

 

How is saying awoman misrepresenting the truth?

 

Because to say “amen and awoman” obviously suggests that amen has something to do with gender, specifically the male gender, otherwise awoman wouldn’t be necessary to balance it out. But amen has never and will never mean that.

 

Amen is a Latin phrase meaning “so let it be.” But while the etymology of the word “amen” may not be common knowledge, the use of the phrase is common knowledge and is understood to have nothing to do with gender. Everyone knows this and Rep. Cleaver, of all people, should know it for sure.

 

Cleaver earned a Master of Divinity (M.Div) from St. Paul School of Theology. For perspective, an M.Div degree is distinguished from other theology master’s programs by its robust curriculum and biblical language emphases. His academics, paired with his many years as a minister, inarguably show that he knows what amen means and doesn’t mean. For curiosity’s sake, if amen was related to gender, what would it mean and why would it be used to conclude a prayer? Subsequently, what would awoman mean?

 

Why does this matter?

 

Liberals often assert themselves as the spearhead of women’s advancement and liberation. But this is false gloating because women are already just as independent and free to be involved in leadership in the U.S. as men. Liberals also like to routinely suggest that conservatives want to stifle women’s opportunities to advance in culture. This is not true of conservatives. Conservatives have more women in this Congress than ever before. Conservatives also enthusiastically added a woman to the highest court in the land last year, and while many argue that Justice Amy Coney Barrett should not have been confirmed, you can’t argue that conservatives are opposed to women in leadership.

 

The awoman absurdity is a desperate attempt to champion modern feminism – and should make feminists furious, as using such unintelligent arguments undermines their credibility. It should also make non-binary people furious because, in a move to expand inclusion, they were left out.

 

The timing for this absurdity is not random. Today, the new House of Representatives is set to vote on a new set of House Rules in which all gender-specific pronouns and gender-related terms such as father, mother, son, and daughter will be omitted.

 

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., tweeted, “This is stupid. Signed,  – A father, son, and brother.”

 

House Rules Chair Jim McGovern, D-Mass., told Axios in a statement:

 

“It is ridiculous that in the middle of a worldwide pandemic, this is what some on the extreme right want to fight about…only in Congress would it be a scandal to be succinct. We are being inclusive, efficient and accurate.”

 

But the point that Chairman McGovern is missing is that conservatives are not naive to the greater picture of these “succinct” measures pushed by progressives. A slippery slope is just that — a slope, not a cliff. It is a gradual progression landmarked by many “succinct” measures unseen by naivety. Though we as a culture are arguably further down the initial lip of the slope, these measures continue to push for a steeper decline. Case and point, we are now recognizing and affirming biologically inaccurate and scientifically inept gender identities in our Congress.

 

In conclusion, amen will always be unrelated to gender. If you have to misrepresent the facts in order to make your point, perhaps you should abandon that point. Resorting to dishonesty, which is effectively what Cleaver did, is never a good means of persuasion. If you think women need to be more involved and included in society, then develop an argument that supports your claim instead of fabricating unrelated points to champion your own.

 

What are the issues women are actually facing? Check out the Falkirk Center podcast with Penny Nance: